The X-Box 360

[drothgery]

Sony's problem with online play, at least according to a guy at Sony, is that not all that many people have broadband yet, as it's not available in all areas (I still can't get it where I live) and it's still expensive.

Bah. Broadband is very widely available today (many cities quite a bit smaller than St. Louis have widely available cable and/or DSL; I had cable five years ago in Rochester, NY, and have it now in San Diego -- and SBC tries to sell me DSL about once a week). And I'm spending $45/mo on a cell phone I use a lot less than the cable modem that costs me the same amount of money.

 

[WizarDru]

Well, I do think online play is nice, but while Xbox Live might have 1.5 million subscribers, there are something like 20 million Xboxes sold. So under 10% of the people with an Xbox are playing it online.

Similarly, 22,000 people playing Socom 2 is pretty good, but pales in comparison to the number of copies of the game sold. (Again, probably around the 10% mark)

Sony's problem with online play, at least according to a guy at Sony, is that not all that many people have broadband yet, as it's not available in all areas (I still can't get it where I live) and it's still expensive. And I agree with him - until it's cheap (say $15-20 a month) and available everywhere, online gaming isn't going to take off.

True 'dat. But I would point out that broadband is rapidly overtaking dial-up, and inside of two or three years, it will be in the lead. And the thing to consider about that 22,000 number is that it was simultaneous. Actual online players would have been much more, just for that title alone. If every Everquests or WoW subscriber was one at one time....WoW would be just about as slow as always. That, and you have to consider that Socom was just one game; start adding games like Tony Hawk Underground, ATV offroad fury and so forth, and you start to get some big numbers. How big, we can only guess. Yeah, they're still a fraction of the whole, but that number is constantly growing. Six years ago, no one cared that the PS/2 could do HD...now, many people care...A LOT. I know I jumped for joy when I found out that "God of War" was in 480p with 16:9 and Surround support. The consoles have to plan for future capacity...that's why Sony has 1080p listed as a feature, even virtually no one in the whole world has a set capable of that resolution.

 

[Jeremy]

1080p.. *dreams happily*

 

[Arnwyn]

I'm not sure I'd agree with that. The PS/2, which has a very half-hearted online presence, has good online numbers. Look at Final Fantasy XI: it currently has over 500,000 subscribers. Xbox-Live has over 1.5 million subscribers, at least. Nintendo was constantly criticized for it's lack of an online presence. When Socom II came out for the PS/2, within 48 hours there were 22,000 people playing online.

You don't need to agree with that - but the numbers speak for themselves. Your "good online numbers" are, in fact, bad online numbers if the goal is for massive online penetration. And "criticized" for it's lack of online presence? We are all quite aware who did the criticizing in those cases.

The online subscribers for Xbox Live are running under 10% (WizarDru and trancejeremy indeed have the correct numbers), and certainly so for the PS2 - that's not good. Not even 1 out of every 10 people owning the console playing online is, as I stated above, too niche.

Of course it's growing - no one's disputing that. But mainstream and massive numbers? As I stated in my first post: not going to happen. Add subscription costs on top of your ISP costs + console costs + game costs = really not going to happen.

 

[TwistedBishop]

While I'll agree that Xbox Live isn't as popular as Microsoft hypes it, I'm having trouble with claims it's a niche market. 2 million people use it, iirc. 1 million buyers of a game make that a huge success, don't they?

I also don't believe that the monthly charge is such a big hurdle. Back when I looked into Live, the monthly fee was something like $5. That's not going to stop people from subscribing. The thing that kept me out was the need of a router (and the fact that, to begin with, I'm not very keen on PvP; but this was back during the Ninja Gaiden tournament, which had a different setup, a style I hope they'll continue). I was really hoping they'd just go ahead integrate a pass-through connection on the 360, to eliminate the need of a router. I think that would have gone the extra mile in helping people feel comfortable using their 360s as an entertainment hub.

 

[Arnwyn]

While I'll agree that Xbox Live isn't as popular as Microsoft hypes it, I'm having trouble with claims it's a niche market. 2 million people use it, iirc. 1 million buyers of a game make that a huge success, don't they?

It is too niche if they're banking too much of the console itself on its use. As I said above, if Microsoft is expecting massive sales (their questionable marketing wankers made them say "1 billion owners" during their E3 conference... WTF?), too much hyping of online isn't going to do it; and if too many games rely on online it'll hold them back. Nobody likes a product that costs additional monthly cash outlays on top of their original purchase to get the full use out of the product.

Now, we obviously have no idea if Microsoft truly will rely on online overmuch for the Xbox 360 (and truthfully, I'm guessing not, if they want to achieve decent sales figures over time). But it is worth noting (which is all I did in my original post).

 

[drothgery]

The consoles have to plan for future capacity...that's why Sony has 1080p listed as a feature, even virtually no one in the whole world has a set capable of that resolution.

Err, not really. Sony picked up some features from nVidia's PC GPUs (the PS3 GPU is a lightly tweaked G70 aka GeForce 7xxx) when they gave up on the idea of using 3 or 4 Cells with no dedicated GPU (which was their original plan). Since it's a PC GPU, it can do PC resolutions and can do dual outputs. If they'd contracted with nVidia earlier in the PS3's development, they'd've had a GPU specifically designed for consoles, and wouldn't support either (because there's no spec for 1080p yet, and nobody is going to hook up their PS3 to two televisions).

 

[Welverin]

People say that all you need is a head start, but that never worked for Sega. They had a head start with both the Saturn and the Dreamcast.

Didn't work to well for the Genesis and Turbograffix 16 either, the SNES ended up about equal with the Genesis in the end.

The power of systems has a long history of not be significant as well, what always seems to have a major impact however is consumer and developer confidence/support, and Final Fantasy (in Japan). The PS2 won the current round because it's the system that got the most (significant) support, and that support existed before much of anything was known about it or anything about the Xbox and Gamcube.

Belief is a powerful thing.

 

[Welverin]

I'm sure I will but in order to take advantage of their head-start the Xbox360 better have some gamepower to back it up. Not having Halo 3 for launch hurts.

Problem is, there's just not enough time. They only released H2 last fall, and fall of next year is pushing it badly as it is. I'll be amazed if they can pull it off at all, it's a new platform after all which means they have to start from the ground up.

Microsoft will never overtake Sony's consoles if they continue to get less exclusive support. They need the Square-Enix/Rockstar/Capcom/Konami's of the world to give them support of their games rather than Sony. Until that happens, Sony will always be the console of choice. Selection makes all the difference.

One thing would guarantee success, Final Fantasy. It made the PS top dog it would work for MS.

EVERYONE and their brother (and sister and mother and children and you get the idea) will have mario kart online.

I can guarantee I won't. Or Mario party/tennis/whatever.

So true. I've been wanting to play "GoldenEye,"

Licensing issues could very well prevent this (EA now has the Bond rights).

I'm not sure I'd agree with that. The PS/2, which has a very half-hearted online presence, has good online numbers. Look at Final Fantasy XI: it currently has over 500,000 subscribers. Xbox-Live has over 1.5 million subscribers, at least. Nintendo was constantly criticized for it's lack of an online presence. When Socom II came out for the PS/2, within 48 hours there were 22,000 people playing online.

Top selling games sell millions of copies, 500,000 isn't a lot in comparison, and 22,000 is downright pathetic. So those two may be good for online games, but compared to the video game market in general they don't merit making online gaming a significant focus of your system. Right now online play is closer to being moreof a buzz word than a central feature.

While I'll agree that Xbox Live isn't as popular as Microsoft hypes it, I'm having trouble with claims it's a niche market. 2 million people use it, iirc. 1 million buyers of a game make that a huge success, don't they?

Two million sounds like a lot, but when you compare it to the total number of system it is a small percentage.

Say you have twenty friends and two of them played D&D, would you say a lot of your friends play D&D?

 

[Captain Tagon]

I can guarantee I won't. Or Mario party/tennis/whatever.

That's possibly the most depressing thing I've heard in weeks.
Those games are pure entertainment.

Two million sounds like a lot, but when you compare it to the total number of system it is a small percentage.

Say you have twenty friends and two of them played D&D, would you say a lot of your friends play D&D?

No, but out of the 30 or so people I know that have an XBox 25 or so of them play XBox Live.